[TUHS] SPARC is CRAPS spelled backwards.

Peter Jeremy peter at rulingia.com
Wed Sep 26 05:48:17 AEST 2018

On 2018-Sep-25 08:01:52 -0700, Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:00:37AM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
>> Peter Jeremy <peter at rulingia.com> wrote:
>> > In the specific case of x86, I would dispute that.  The various warts in
>> > the x86 instruction set and "architecture" mean that x86 code density is
>> > relatively low and on a par with SPARC code.
>> This paper has a nice survey of instruction set densities, which very much
>> disagrees with your statement:
>> http://web.eece.maine.edu/~vweaver/papers/iccd09/iccd09_density.pdf
>That's a neat paper, I like it, thanks for the pointer.  I'm curious
>why Peter thought what he thought, my guess would have been more like
>what the paper showed, but that was a "hand optimized assembly", maybe
>the compilers aren't that good?  I dunno, Peter, care to comment?

I agree that looks like an interesting paper - I've skimmed it and
will have to read it in details.  I was thinking back to when I was
using a mixture of SPARC and x86 at a previous job.  I didn't do any
careful analysis, more eyeballing various executables and gut feeling.
I no longer have access to that environment.  In view of that paper,
I'll withdraw my claim since it's not backed up by evidence.

Peter Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20180926/1ad5d9be/attachment.sig>

More information about the TUHS mailing list